The catalogueFederal (Canada)
Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

Browse privacy decisions from Federal (Canada) — each with an AI-generated plain-language summary for every ruling.

1 decision matching
Federal (Canada)Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)
Federal (Canada) flag
Feb 23, 20262026 OIC 24Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 24

A federal institution

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought all Microsoft Teams messages from EX-1 level employees and above, along with Teams usage policies and activity reports, for a specific timeframe. The institution claimed the request would be "operationally catastrophic" due to the estimated volume of messages and its limited ATIP capacity. However, the Commissioner found the institution's evidence, particularly its estimation of message volume based on a global report rather than actual Teams data, to be unreliable and inflated. The Commissioner also noted that the institution's limited ATIP capacity, while acknowledged, does not automatically render a request abusive. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was an abuse of the right of access.

Quick view

Access to Information Acts.6.1 Application Denied (must respond)

Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 24

Feb 23, 20262026 OIC 24
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought all Microsoft Teams messages from EX-1 level employees and above, along with Teams usage policies and activity reports, for a specific timeframe. The institution claimed the request would be "operationally catastrophic" due to the estimated volume of messages and its limited ATIP capacity. However, the Commissioner found the institution's evidence, particularly its estimation of message volume based on a global report rather than actual Teams data, to be unreliable and inflated. The Commissioner also noted that the institution's limited ATIP capacity, while acknowledged, does not automatically render a request abusive. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was an abuse of the right of access.

Key Issues
  • Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1)(c) ATIA
  • Whether the institution's estimate of responsive records was reliable
  • Whether the institution's ATIP capacity limitations justify declining to act on the request